The main decisions made at the meeting in Abu Dhabi: increasing transparency and creating uniformity in the formulation of terms, which will make it difficult for hostile parties to invent contradictions between studies that do not exist in reality
After months of struggles, discussions and searching for a way, the researchers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agreed to changes and innovations that will restore trust in researchers and serve them in their assessment of what is happening in climate science.
The body (IPCC) established in 1988 to examine the information on climate change employs thousands of researchers and scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, but its reputation collapsed when its leadership did not respond correctly to erroneous assessments
the most famous of which was the melting rate of the Himalayan glaciers,
Nature 463, 276–277; 2010 - The publication of the mistakes that led to the emails "from the University of East Anglia" Nature 462, 397; 2009)
some of which hinted "as if" leading scientists who made important discoveries that seemingly contradict the scientific convention that global warming is caused by human activity, and who tried to silence and hide criticism, which put the IPCC and especially the chairman Rajendra Pachauri under great pressure.
The InterAcademy Council, a corporation established by academics from many different countries, was authorized to examine the structure
and the procedures of the IPCC and propose improvements in the body's activities. Nature 467, 14; 2010
The committee identified the lack of executive authority as a key factor in the failure of the IPCC to respond to crises, in addition to this, the committee recommends full transparency in the publication of assessments and the professional use of the media, which conveys the IPCC's policies and activities in a transparent and professional manner.
The IPCC adopted some of the proposals Nature 467, 891–892; 2010
. More substantial changes were approved at a conference in Abu Dhabi in which they participated
Envoys from countries that are members of the IPCC, an executive committee of 13 scientists was chosen to oversee ongoing activities and act on issues that cannot be delayed. The committee will be headed by a chairman, a deputy and an assistant deputy who will form a "support group" for the researchers, which will enable continuous activity.
Any debate or conflict of interest in policy will be brought before the committee, as well as financial and other issues related to the work of the IPCC. Procedures for action in the event of (future) errors in reports were also approved, as well as guidelines to ensure that descriptions of facts are clear and consistent in each report.
According to IPCC chairman Pachauri, "the developments at the conference in Abu Dhabi are an encouraging result of a process that began a year ago, which will strengthen the IPCC and restore public trust in publications relating to climate change."
The first test for change will be towards the end of the year when the report will be published that will assess whether climate change increases extreme weather events, despite many hypotheses there is little scientific evidence of a connection, especially between warming and the frequency of storms (and the economic losses following their increase and intensification). The report will once again arouse the existing controversy on the subject, it will be interesting to see how the IPCC will handle the "hot apple" in which there are many hypotheses but clear and clear conclusions.... A little.
At the conference in Abu Dhabi, administrative issues remained open, such as the selection of institutions and the selection of a new chairman. According to the participants, office bearers should be given enough time to serve in order to draw lessons. the important ones
-
20 תגובות
Friends:
I will not enter into this debate because there are enough experts greater than me and you who have expressed their opinion and it is clear that most of them claim that there is warming and that it is of human origin.
I must, however, say that a denier who identifies himself as a "non-denier skeptic" is not only a denier but also a liar, so I wouldn't put too much faith in his words.
Regarding the first, sorry, the scientific consensus thinks the opposite of you.
Regarding the second, it is clear that the fuel itself is not polluting, but in the process of promiscuous fuel burning, many impurities are also released, such as sulfur dioxide.
I think I was clear
DTP ≠ heating
DTP ≠ infection.
The root of the problem. You say a simple thing - I will consume but the poor of the world will pay the price, only I will not pay tax.
And where will the billions come from if there are no taxes?
And apart from that, is it not more simply to stop cutting down and planting trees and correct the situation in the sea by preventing pollution or is pollution also a republican civil right?
In addition, did you notice that when you were proven wrong about the facts, you switch to ideology - "The DTP is not cyanide" and other foxy slogans?
They put it into our heads that DTP is minimum cyanide.
DTP is like oxygen, the plant world lives on DTP.
I agree with you one hundred percent about forests and sea pollution.
That's where the billions should go and not to tax the citizen for GHG emissions...
It's just madness
Skeptical, humans are destroying the environments that absorb the carbon dioxide - cutting down forests, suffocating the plankton in the sea with pollution to the point of creating marine deserts. You can't hold the rope on both sides and claim that everything is fine.
First of all, DTP did not create the warming we experienced until 95.
The research is clear.
So even if there is an excess there is no problem, there were periods when there was also 4000 dtp in the atmosphere
Are you asking today where the industrial DTP is going?
There is a study that investigated exactly this
"But observations tell us otherwise. The mean atmospheric CO2 concentration on the East Coast has been observed to be lower than that over the Pacific coast. This means that more CO2 is taken up by land ecosystems over the United States than is released by industrial activities.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981020074617.htm
R. H. Rafaim
If you look at the date of the article it is from 1990.
The temperature has stabilized since 1995
A skeptic does not deny
I don't understand that much about this topic, but I can't understand what the argument is about?
Are you claiming there is no warming? Or are you claiming there is warming?
In the last link you provided it is written explicitly: "The results confirm that average global temperature is increasing".
The skeptic does not deny, if the DETP is a result of the warming and not the other way around, then what happens to the DETP emitted from power plants and cars? is he gone
As you said, coming up with a fallacious argument is very easy and you demonstrated it nicely.
You can invent a thousand and one fictions.
Where is the evidence for your invented claim?
So it can also be said that because people eat a lot of watermelons - the temperature is stable.
That's it, there is an answer.
Adi
I brought a reference of over 900 studies
What about you ? Nada. Who is pathetic here?
My claim has a basis
DTP is a result of heating and not the other way around
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v343/n6260/abs/343709a0.html
Avi,
The question was simple: if A causes B, why when there is A for a period of 15 years there is no B.
A. - Emission of DTP
B - warming up
Why did you feel the need to tell in the same breath that:
1. Lack of B also causes C (melting glaciers).
2. The questioner is an interest that has interests in harming humanity.
3. Group D are scumbags.
And a sentence that closes your response 6, which you consider to be a winning sentence:
"Most of them do not deny the actual warming but only the question of whether it is man-made."
Belongs directly to the original question - is A the cause of B?
For Dotan (and I admit again for me too) this is not "just" the question, but this is exactly the question he is asking, therefore all the other words in your comments were completely unnecessary.
The only thing this shows is that whoever claims that warming has stopped does not understand anything about science and will eat his hat when we go to the next level at once as a result of the accumulation of all the processes that he denies the existence of when he says that nothing is happening.
And by the way, the Republicans - I don't see such a zeal to deny Einstein's theory or quantum physics. Only in the field of climate and biology do people have feelings that should not be hurt.
skeptic not in denial,
Don't be pathetic, or at least learn the internet alphabet and hide your patheticness better.
Avi,
To answer Dotan, part of argument 2 in response 4 was enough.
Dotan asked why adding DTP at a uniform (or increasing) rate does not cause the temperature to rise at all in the last 15 years. Of all your rants in response 4 (which for some reason I imagine being said with foam at the corner of the mouth) about Republicans, glaciers and the Fox network, the only relevant words were:
"Atmospheric processes... do not move all the time at a uniform rate".
It shows something doesn't it?
The one who talks about fairness and constantly changes IP addresses and nicknames.
Apart from what I wrote - that they manage to introduce only on the margins and when they do not attack the warming head-on, but look for additional causes that probably exist but whose actual effect is minor (for example the sun, cosmic radiation). Most of them do not deny the actual warming but only the question of whether it is man-made.
Why can't we be decent in this discussion?
Are there no peer-reviewed studies of the skeptical scientists in scientific journals? (including Science and Nature)?
Certainly there is
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
To Dothan, although your claims are cut and paste from Ron's nonsense
A. it does happen,
B. Atmospheric processes like evolution do not move all the time at a uniform rate, for example evolution gains speed when a niche is vacated as a result of some disaster.
third. Even if it is true that we have stabilized in the last 15 years, we are talking about a high degree of stabilization, and this sequence of warm years has consequences for increasing the melting of the glaciers in Greenland and the poles than if we were, for example, in jumps of cold and warm years like until the XNUMXs, because another warm year and another warm year interfere for ice to accumulate.
Therefore, the question of who is bigger for 1998 or 2005 and maybe 2009 is irrelevant and is claimed by people who do not understand how nature works but want to harm the important effort of reducing the DTP, with the false Republican argument that disordered consumption is a birthright of Americans.
As soon as Science or Nature change their line and support the climate fools, I too will change their knowledge of global warming and call it global cooling. Until that happens, Fox-style gibberish won't convince me.
And apart from that, I answered before - even if there are scientists on the other side, who will try to publish their findings in Science or Nature. To date, all studies that deny warming have dealt with side issues such as the influence of the sun.
Father I think you are wrong,
There are very senior climate scientists on the other side of the debate
For example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Bryson
I ask again, if I keep pouring fuel on a fire - the heat only rises.
But in the case of DTP it didn't happen, how could it be?
This is an essential question, don't you think?
If there was stabilization, it would be at a much higher level than before. If I were you, I would not believe in conspiracy theories such as Climategate. The only problem there was that the scientists were tired of being bullied by the deniers, and they stopped providing them with data, because they are not climate scientists anyway and do not understand anything, and take what they want from the data without understanding it.
I know there is an ugly debate on the subject and I don't want to get into it.
But I have a simple and practical question:
The professor who was the head of the research institute in England and resigned after Climategate gave the temperature data for the last 15 years - and you can see that the temperature is stable (even a small cooling in the last years)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
If the amount of DTP is only increasing, how is it that the temperature has stabilized? It should go up more if there is a connection.
Thank you for a factual and not shocking answer